House Republicans Attempt To Nix Military's Clean Energy Initiatives

House Republicans Attempt To Nix Military's Clean Energy Initiatives

Republicans on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee have decided that the military’s push for clean, renewable energy has gone far enough, and have proposed for next year’s budget that the Pentagon not spend a dime on renewable energy sources that cost more than traditional dirty energy.

The shift in policy came from the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by California Republican Howard “Buck” McKeon. Republicans on the committee complain that the fuel being used for the “green fleet” and other military renewable energy projects is too costly, and contend that the military should never spend more on a renewable energy source that is more costly than traditional petroleum.

In its report on next year’s Pentagon budget, the House Armed Services Committee banned the Defense Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs more than a “traditional fossil fuel.” It’s a standard that may be almost impossible to meet, energy experts believe; there’s almost no way the tiny, experimental biofuel industry can hope to compete on price with the massive, century-old fossil fuels business.

But if the measure becomes law, it would make it all-but-inconceivable for the Pentagon to buy the renewable fuels. It would likely scuttle one of the top priorities of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. And it might very well suffocate the gasping biofuel industry, which was looking to the Pentagon to help it survive.

…the Green Fleet’s 450,000 gallons of fuel made from chicken fat and other waste greases (plus a dollop of algae oil) didn’t come cheap. At $12 million — arguably the biggest biofuel purchase in military history — the algae-chicken goop costs about four times more than an old-school petroleum product.

But the armed services committee didn’t put limits on all alternative fuels — just the ones with environmental benefits. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 forbids federal agencies from buying alternative fuels that are more polluting than conventional ones. Last week, the congressmen ordered to exempt the Defense Department from those regulations.

House Republicans are absolutely right – this issue is squarely about money. But it isn’t the money that the Committee is spending; it is the money they are receiving, specifically from the energy industry. The 35 Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee have, combined, over their careers, received millions of dollars from the energy sector. Here are just a few examples, showing the totals that Republican members have received from the energy sector (data from the Center for Responsive Politics):

But the Republicans on the Armed Services Committee are too near-sighted to see the long-term benefits: They only want to focus on the immediate costs. But what they fail to see is that, yes, the biofuels are more expensive in the short-term, but they actually save us money in the long-term. This is known as “externalizing the cost of oil.”

Then there are the health effects that come from the burning of traditional dirty energy sources. Estimates (on the low end) show that our economy loses about $29 billion every year due to health costs related to air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.

When added together with the environmental costs, that total approaches well over $230 billion every year. And that’s the low-end estimate. The high end has the total externalized cost of oil for just health and environment at $942 billion a year. You can also go ahead and add in that extra $4 billion a year we’re giving to the oil industry in subsidies.

Oil costs us our environment, our health, our dollars, and even our lives. Sadly, none of those costs are factored into the budgets of the Republicans sitting on the House Armed Services Committee.

Previous Comments

At the end of both of the last world wars, the losers were out of oil…

Should a major conflict arise you would probably be happy if you had a military that was energy independent. Never mind the fact that the military are horrific energy users, and being green(er) is probably a good thing.

If you want to go to win a war, you just have to go after your enemy’s fuel.

If anyone is interested in the history of oil and the modern age, read this book.

(Perhaps the pentagon should send the Republicans a list of naval bases that need to move, and how much they cost. Or better ask to design and construction flying aircraft carriers a’la Avengers, because you wouldn’t need to be near water.)

There is also a good doco called “Blood & Oil in the middle east”, which documents the mobilisation of various countries military in an effort to control, or defend oil reserves starting at World War 1 (full length).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VWIdX4Rm1I&feature=related

There is a more recent version which talk about the american military basically now being an oil protection service .

So the US military are greenies? What if they want energy self suffiency on the battle field? Scouting parties and isolated forward bases get weighed down & require more expenditure on vehicles to lug fuel around with them for generators, instead of just using renewable energy. Its a no brainer. Fuel convoys also get regularly attacked and as Oilman pointed out, those without fuel grind to a halt.

No doubt fuel convoys being attacked and destroyed is good news to oil suppliers and republican senators getting lucrative funds from oil companies, because it means that they have to place another order to replace the destroyed fuel.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.